More on Arizona's Immigration Law

I enjoy reading Andrew McCarthy on National Review Online. Today, he offered three pieces on the constitutionality of Arizona's controversial immigration law here, here, and here.

I learned some important points about the law that make me feel better about its constitutionality. First, any communication between a police officer and an individual about immigration status can only come after the police officer lawfully stops the individual. In other words, a police officer cannot stop the individual and demand immigration papers on a hunch. It can only happen after a traffic stop, or if a search warrant is executed for another reason.

Second, the police officer may only question the individual about his immigration status if the police officer has a 'reasonable suspicion' about the individual's immigration status. This means that the officer must provide specific, articulable facts supporting his actions. A hunch will not cut it.

Third, any individual who is wrongly accused or questioned has the right to a civil action against the offending law enforcement agency.

These steps provide for greater protection to an individual that are provided under federal laws. A federal agent doesn't have to go through the steps that Arizona cops have to go through.

And finally, the law expressly prohibits any stop based on race or nationality.


There is a question about whether this law is constitutional under the Supremacy Clause, but I feel convinced that it does not violate Equal Protection laws - so long as police officers follow the mandates of the law.

Arizona's Immigration Law

Yesterday, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed into law a bill that criminalizes the failure to carry immigration documents. President Obama has come out and spoken strongly against this bill, saying it offends traditional notions of fairness.

I have to admit that I don't like the smell of this bill, for several reasons. First, although generally I am all for states taking action instead of waiting for the federal government to act, immigration may very well be an issue where the federal government has the final say. Per the Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Clause 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

In other words, federal laws made in pursuance of the Constitution are the supreme law of the land, and supercede state laws dealing with the same subject. A pretty strong argument can be made that immigration is of federal concern, and thus Arizona's immigration law could be made null and void.

Here is the rub, however - is there not federal immigration legislation on the books to supercede the Arizona law? This law appears to be one to enforce federal immigration laws, when enforcement mechanisms are obviously already present in the federal law. So is this law redundant, and if so, I'd expect lawsuits attacking the Arizona law under the Supremacy Clause.

For an argument to counter this line of thought, see Instapundit.

Second, how is this law to be enforced?

It requires police officers, “when practicable,” to detain people they reasonably suspect are in the country without authorization and to verify their status with federal officials, unless doing so would hinder an investigation or emergency medical treatment.

This is where it gets real sticky. This law empowers a police officer to (1) determine when it is appropriate to question an individual about his residency status, and (2) determine when it is "practicable" to detain someone the officer suspects of being in the country illegally.

Yikes. I have the utmost respect for our police officers, but giving them the power to question and also detain a person based on a reasonable belief about the person's residency status - especially when possibly 99 out of 100 incidents will involve Hispanics - is a risky proposition.

I would be shocked if this law is upheld as constitutional.

From a political standpoint, I think it is risky as well. For one, this law will be used relentlessly by Democrats this summer and fall to attack Republicans. Secondly, it could rally support for federal legislation that seems tame by comparison(amnesty, anyone?).

Remember November

Get ready for November.

Here Comes the VAT

Today President Obama hinted that he's be open to the Value-Added Tax.

This will be proposed not as a substitute for federal income taxes (an idea I'm cool with), but as an additional tax. It will affect manufacturers, retailers, wholesalers, and the public at large. It will do massive harm to an already fragile economy. It will destroy job growth and put more people in harm's way (economically-speaking, of course).

And Obama and the Democrat Party wouldn't have it any other way. Impose more taxes, create more economic problems. Create more economic problems, engender dependency. Engender dependency, and you've conjured up a perfect scenario to grab power.

Which is something Obama does as well as any politician since Hitler (and no, I'm not calling Obama a Nazi).

Uh oh, Protesters Arrested at White House

Today a group of people wearing military uniforms - including fatigues - and protesting President Obama's policies were arrested after handcuffing themselves to the White House fence today.

Those unhinged, fringe, right-wing felons of the Tea Party movement strike again, right?

Oops.

Park Police arrested several gay rights protestors who had handcuffed themselves to the fence in front of the White House. Capt. P.J. Beck of the Park Police said they were arrested for "failure to obey a lawful order" and that they would be taken to the Anacostia station to be processed.

According to a release from GetEQUAL, the gay rights group that organized the protest, there were six servicemembers arrested.

I wonder if we'll see the media start to slander the gay rights movement as racist...

This is Getting Surreal

Take a moment and ponder this:

• Last week, former president Bill Clinton likened the Tea Party movement to the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.
• This weekend, Time Magazine's Joe Klein accused Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck - both of whom speak much the same language as Tea Partiers - of potentially committing SEDITION (that's a crime, folks) against the US government.
• Congressional Democrats believe Tea Partiers are racist
• President Obama believes the "core group" of Tea Partiers are "Birthers"

This, to me, is staggering. Liberals across the country have resorted to vile, baseless attacks on the character of millions of Americans rather than engage in productive, intelligent debate about our nation's course.

If you are concerned about the amount of spending in Washington, and the direction that big-government politicians are taking, you might be a delusional, racist, terrorist felon.

Think about that.

Give Me That Damn Gavel

I've been hearing a lot of good things about Allen West, who is running for Congress in Florida.